[PATCH v7 0/2] Improve the performance of bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[PATCH v7 0/2] Improve the performance of bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[Yi Sun]

Use lib/find_bit_benchmark.c for testing.
Test results showed a 40% improvement in dense cases,
and almost no change in sparse cases.

Performance test results on my hardware:
	before(ns)	after(ns)	change	p-value
dense	1211		688		-43.2%	8.3e-11
sparse	13.3		13.4		0.8%	0.27

Version 7 only changed the alignment format of the test code.

---
v6: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260618133518.4079981-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com
- Improve test code.
- Change infinite for loop to for_each_clear_bit_from.

v5: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260618015252.3601554-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com
- Improve test code.
- Change the "goto again" code structure to a for loop.

v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260601094234.103863-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com
- Test code has been added to PATCH v2.

v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260514090607.231387-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com
- Code optimization was performed on PATCH v1.

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260514035644.4118050-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com
- Do not introduce find_last_bit_from().

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260512040659.2992142-1-yi.sun@unisoc.com


Yi Sun (2):
  lib: bitmap: add tests for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()
  lib: bitmap: optimize bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

 lib/bitmap.c             | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
 lib/find_bit_benchmark.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 lib/test_bitmap.c        | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v7 1/2] lib: bitmap: add tests for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[Yi Sun]

Add functional and performance tests
for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off().

performance tests partial output:
Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[    0.310073] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off: 852731 ns,   1154 iterations
[    0.311435] find_next_bit:                 1356654 ns, 163975 iterations
Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[    0.316267] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:4426808 ns, 322479 iterations
[    0.316292] find_next_bit:                   15154 ns,    656 iterations

Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.sun@unisoc.com>
---
 lib/find_bit_benchmark.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 lib/test_bitmap.c        | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
index 00d9dc61cd46..05305e655f99 100644
--- a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
+++ b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
@@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ static int __init test_find_next_and_bit(const void *bitmap,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int __init
+test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned long len)
+{
+	unsigned long i, cnt;
+	ktime_t time;
+
+	time = ktime_get();
+	for (cnt = i = 0; i < BITMAP_LEN; cnt++)
+		i = bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN, i, 8, 0, 0) + 1;
+	time = ktime_get() - time;
+	pr_err("bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:%7llu ns, %6ld iterations\n", time, cnt);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __init find_bit_test(void)
 {
 	unsigned long nbits = BITMAP_LEN / SPARSE;
@@ -158,6 +173,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
 	get_random_bytes(bitmap, sizeof(bitmap));
 	get_random_bytes(bitmap2, sizeof(bitmap2));
 
+	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
@@ -181,6 +197,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
 		__set_bit(get_random_u32_below(BITMAP_LEN), bitmap2);
 	}
 
+	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
 	test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
index 69813c10e6c0..8665df77c960 100644
--- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
+++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
@@ -234,6 +234,43 @@ static void __init test_find_nth_bit(void)
 	}
 }
 
+static void __init
+test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(void)
+{
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 192);
+
+	bitmap_set(bmap, 0, 192);
+
+	bitmap_clear(bmap, 0, 8);
+	__clear_bit(50, bmap);
+	bitmap_clear(bmap, 60, 18);
+	__set_bit(69, bmap);
+	__clear_bit(80, bmap);
+	bitmap_clear(bmap, 100, 10);
+	__clear_bit(120, bmap);
+	bitmap_clear(bmap, 145, 8);
+	bitmap_clear(bmap, 160, 32);
+
+	expect_eq_uint(0,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 0, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(0,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(163,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 1));
+	expect_eq_uint(60,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 0, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(160,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(60,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 4));
+	expect_eq_uint(100,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 10, 0, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(160,
+		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 32, 0, 0));
+	expect_eq_uint(1,
+		!!(bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 33, 0, 0) >= 192));
+}
+
 static void __init test_fill_set(void)
 {
 	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
@@ -1559,6 +1596,7 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
 	test_for_each_clear_bitrange_from();
 	test_for_each_set_clump8();
 	test_for_each_set_bit_wrap();
+	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off();
 }
 
 KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_bitmap);
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v7 2/2] lib: bitmap: optimize bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[Yi Sun]

Finding a contiguous free region in a highly fragmented
bitmap is not easy and may require many repeated attempts.
Therefore, find_next_bit(map, end, index) is not the optimal choice.
This is because there may be multiple scattered free regions
within the range [index, end) and none of them will meet the length
requirement of @nr.
Instead, it's sufficient to directly find the last bit within
the range [index, end), thus reducing unnecessary repeated calls.

An example of a bitmap:
Bits 0-3:   cleared(4 bits)
Bits 4-5:   set    (2 bits)
Bits 6-8:   cleared(4 bits)
Bits 9-10:  set    (2 bits)
Bits 11-20: cleared(10 bits)

The goal is to find a 10-bit free region.

The old code logic is as follows:
find_next_zero_bit(start = 0, find bit 0) -> find_next_bit(find bit 4) ->
next loop ->
find_next_zero_bit(start = 5, find bit 6) -> find_next_bit(find bit 9) ->
next loop ->
find_next_zero_bit(start = 10, find bit 11) -> success

The new code logic is as follows:
find_next_zero_bit(start = 0, find bit 0) -> find_last_bit(find bit 9) ->
next loop ->
find_next_zero_bit(start = 10, find bit 11) -> success

Performance test results on my hardware(use lib/find_bit_benchmark.c):

		before	after	change	p-value
dense		1211	688	-43.2%	8.3e-11
sparse		13.3	13.4	0.8%	0.27

Co-developed-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.sun@unisoc.com>
---
 lib/bitmap.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c
index b9bfa157e095..a00a71f2b7bb 100644
--- a/lib/bitmap.c
+++ b/lib/bitmap.c
@@ -432,22 +432,23 @@ unsigned long bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(unsigned long *map,
 					     unsigned long align_mask,
 					     unsigned long align_offset)
 {
-	unsigned long index, end, i;
-again:
-	index = find_next_zero_bit(map, size, start);
-
-	/* Align allocation */
-	index = __ALIGN_MASK(index + align_offset, align_mask) - align_offset;
-
-	end = index + nr;
-	if (end > size)
-		return end;
-	i = find_next_bit(map, end, index);
-	if (i < end) {
-		start = i + 1;
-		goto again;
+	unsigned long end, i, off;
+
+	for_each_clear_bit_from(start, map, size) {
+		start = __ALIGN_MASK(start + align_offset, align_mask) - align_offset;
+		end = start + nr;
+		if (end > size)
+			break;
+
+		off = round_down(start, BITS_PER_LONG);
+		i = find_last_bit(map + start / BITS_PER_LONG, end - off) + off;
+		if (i >= end || i < start)
+			return start;
+
+		start = i;
 	}
-	return index;
+
+	return size;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off);
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] lib: bitmap: optimize bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[Michał Nazarewicz]

On Mon, Jun 22 2026, Yi Sun wrote:
> Finding a contiguous free region in a highly fragmented
> bitmap is not easy and may require many repeated attempts.
> Therefore, find_next_bit(map, end, index) is not the optimal choice.
> This is because there may be multiple scattered free regions
> within the range [index, end) and none of them will meet the length
> requirement of @nr.
> Instead, it's sufficient to directly find the last bit within
> the range [index, end), thus reducing unnecessary repeated calls.
[…]
> Co-developed-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.sun@unisoc.com>

Acked-by: Michał Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>

> ---
>  lib/bitmap.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c
> index b9bfa157e095..a00a71f2b7bb 100644
> --- a/lib/bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/bitmap.c
> @@ -432,22 +432,23 @@ unsigned long bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(unsigned long *map,
>  					     unsigned long align_mask,
>  					     unsigned long align_offset)
>  {
[…]
> +	unsigned long end, i, off;
> +
> +	for_each_clear_bit_from(start, map, size) {
> +		start = __ALIGN_MASK(start + align_offset, align_mask) - align_offset;
> +		end = start + nr;
> +		if (end > size)
> +			break;
> +
> +		off = round_down(start, BITS_PER_LONG);
> +		i = find_last_bit(map + start / BITS_PER_LONG, end - off) + off;
> +		if (i >= end || i < start)
> +			return start;
> +
> +		start = i;

Gotta be honest, I’m not a fan of `for_each_clear_bit_from` the way it’s
used here.  It hides the `start++` that happens at end of each loop.
The code works either way, but I find the current form harder to read
than an infinite loop.

Having said that, Yury is the maintainer here so if he prefers that, I’m
obviously not gonna fight it.

>  	}
> -	return index;
> +
> +	return size;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off);

-- 
Best regards
ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴィツ
«If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»

Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] lib: bitmap: add tests for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[Michał Nazarewicz]

On Mon, Jun 22 2026, Yi Sun wrote:
> Add functional and performance tests
> for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off().
>
> performance tests partial output:
> Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> [    0.310073] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off: 852731 ns,   1154 iterations
> [    0.311435] find_next_bit:                 1356654 ns, 163975 iterations
> Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [    0.316267] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:4426808 ns, 322479 iterations
> [    0.316292] find_next_bit:                   15154 ns,    656 iterations
>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.sun@unisoc.com>

Acked-by: Michał Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>

> ---
>  lib/find_bit_benchmark.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  lib/test_bitmap.c        | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> index 00d9dc61cd46..05305e655f99 100644
> --- a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> +++ b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ static int __init test_find_next_and_bit(const void *bitmap,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int __init
> +test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned long len)
> +{
> +	unsigned long i, cnt;
> +	ktime_t time;
> +
> +	time = ktime_get();
> +	for (cnt = i = 0; i < BITMAP_LEN; cnt++)
> +		i = bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN, i, 8, 0, 0) + 1;
> +	time = ktime_get() - time;
> +	pr_err("bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:%7llu ns, %6ld iterations\n", time, cnt);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int __init find_bit_test(void)
>  {
>  	unsigned long nbits = BITMAP_LEN / SPARSE;
> @@ -158,6 +173,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
>  	get_random_bytes(bitmap, sizeof(bitmap));
>  	get_random_bytes(bitmap2, sizeof(bitmap2));
>  
> +	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> @@ -181,6 +197,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
>  		__set_bit(get_random_u32_below(BITMAP_LEN), bitmap2);
>  	}
>  
> +	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
>  	test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index 69813c10e6c0..8665df77c960 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> @@ -234,6 +234,43 @@ static void __init test_find_nth_bit(void)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void __init
> +test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(void)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 192);
> +
> +	bitmap_set(bmap, 0, 192);
> +
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 0, 8);
> +	__clear_bit(50, bmap);
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 60, 18);
> +	__set_bit(69, bmap);
> +	__clear_bit(80, bmap);
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 100, 10);
> +	__clear_bit(120, bmap);
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 145, 8);
> +	bitmap_clear(bmap, 160, 32);
> +
> +	expect_eq_uint(0,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 0, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(0,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(163,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 1));
> +	expect_eq_uint(60,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 0, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(160,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(60,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 4));
> +	expect_eq_uint(100,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 10, 0, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(160,
> +		bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 32, 0, 0));
> +	expect_eq_uint(1,
> +		!!(bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 33, 0, 0) >= 192));

In C `x >= y` yields 0 or 1.  There’s no need for `!!`.

About `>` vs `>=`, the original code returns `> 192` (because it returns
`end` when it exceeds `size`).  The new code returns `192` (because it
returns `size` if loop fails to find an area).  If that’s the case, this
patch, PATCH 1/2, should have `>` and PATCH 2/2 should change it to
`expect_eq_uint(192, …)` to reflect change in the API.
 
> +}
> +
>  static void __init test_fill_set(void)
>  {
>  	DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
> @@ -1559,6 +1596,7 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
>  	test_for_each_clear_bitrange_from();
>  	test_for_each_set_clump8();
>  	test_for_each_set_bit_wrap();
> +	test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off();
>  }
>  
>  KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_bitmap);

-- 
Best regards
ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴィツ
«If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»

答复: [PATCH v7 1/2] lib: bitmap: add tests for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()

[孙毅 (Yi Sun)]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Michał Nazarewicz <mnazarewicz@gmail.com> 代表 Micha?
> Nazarewicz
> 发送时间: 2026年6月22日 18:06
> 收件人: 孙毅 (Yi Sun) <Yi.Sun@unisoc.com>; yury.norov@gmail.com
> 抄送: 孙毅 (Yi Sun) <Yi.Sun@unisoc.com>; 279644543@qq.com; akpm@linux-
> foundation.org; akinobu.mita@gmail.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> tjmercier@google.com; fvdl@google.com; tglx@kernel.org; song@kernel.org;
> hch@lst.de; minchan@kernel.org; jstultz@google.com
> 主题: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] lib: bitmap: add tests for
> bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off()
> 
> 
> 注意: 这封邮件来自于外部。除非你确定邮件内容安全，否则不要点击任何链
> 接和附件。
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 22 2026, Yi Sun wrote:
> > Add functional and performance tests
> > for bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off().
> >
> > performance tests partial output:
> > Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> > [    0.310073] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off: 852731 ns,   1154 iterations
> > [    0.311435] find_next_bit:                 1356654 ns, 163975 iterations
> > Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
> > [    0.316267] bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:4426808 ns, 322479 iterations
> > [    0.316292] find_next_bit:                   15154 ns,    656 iterations
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.sun@unisoc.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Michał Nazarewicz <mina86@mina86.com>
> 
> > ---
> >  lib/find_bit_benchmark.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/test_bitmap.c        | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> > index 00d9dc61cd46..05305e655f99 100644
> > --- a/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> > +++ b/lib/find_bit_benchmark.c
> > @@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ static int __init test_find_next_and_bit(const void
> *bitmap,
> >       return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int __init
> > +test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned long
> len)
> > +{
> > +     unsigned long i, cnt;
> > +     ktime_t time;
> > +
> > +     time = ktime_get();
> > +     for (cnt = i = 0; i < BITMAP_LEN; cnt++)
> > +             i = bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN, i, 8, 0, 0) + 1;
> > +     time = ktime_get() - time;
> > +     pr_err("bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off:%7llu ns, %6ld iterations\n", time,
> cnt);
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int __init find_bit_test(void)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long nbits = BITMAP_LEN / SPARSE;
> > @@ -158,6 +173,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
> >       get_random_bytes(bitmap, sizeof(bitmap));
> >       get_random_bytes(bitmap2, sizeof(bitmap2));
> >
> > +     test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> > @@ -181,6 +197,7 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
> >               __set_bit(get_random_u32_below(BITMAP_LEN), bitmap2);
> >       }
> >
> > +     test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> >       test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> > diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > index 69813c10e6c0..8665df77c960 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> > @@ -234,6 +234,43 @@ static void __init test_find_nth_bit(void)
> >       }
> >  }
> >
> > +static void __init
> > +test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(void)
> > +{
> > +     DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 192);
> > +
> > +     bitmap_set(bmap, 0, 192);
> > +
> > +     bitmap_clear(bmap, 0, 8);
> > +     __clear_bit(50, bmap);
> > +     bitmap_clear(bmap, 60, 18);
> > +     __set_bit(69, bmap);
> > +     __clear_bit(80, bmap);
> > +     bitmap_clear(bmap, 100, 10);
> > +     __clear_bit(120, bmap);
> > +     bitmap_clear(bmap, 145, 8);
> > +     bitmap_clear(bmap, 160, 32);
> > +
> > +     expect_eq_uint(0,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 0, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(0,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(163,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 8, 3, 1));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(60,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 0, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(160,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(60,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 1, 8, 7, 4));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(100,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 10, 0, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(160,
> > +             bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 32, 0, 0));
> > +     expect_eq_uint(1,
> > +             !!(bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off(bmap, 192, 0, 33, 0, 0) >= 192));
> 
> In C `x >= y` yields 0 or 1.  There’s no need for `!!`.
> 
> About `>` vs `>=`, the original code returns `> 192` (because it returns
> `end` when it exceeds `size`).  The new code returns `192` (because it
> returns `size` if loop fails to find an area).  If that’s the case, this
> patch, PATCH 1/2, should have `>` and PATCH 2/2 should change it to
> `expect_eq_uint(192, …)` to reflect change in the API.
> 

Very helpful feedback.
I will make changes in v8.

> > +}
> > +
> >  static void __init test_fill_set(void)
> >  {
> >       DECLARE_BITMAP(bmap, 1024);
> > @@ -1559,6 +1596,7 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
> >       test_for_each_clear_bitrange_from();
> >       test_for_each_set_clump8();
> >       test_for_each_set_bit_wrap();
> > +     test_bitmap_find_next_zero_area_off();
> >  }
> >
> >  KSTM_MODULE_LOADERS(test_bitmap);
> 
> --
> Best regards
> ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴィツ
> «If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»